This would all be true if there was no rake. As it is you just don't get enough edge on even crappy regs to counteract the rake. Unless you're Kamel. But only he can do it.

i agree with 7castle. im really not a fan of having all these 2+2ers in my games. A few games I don't mind, but seriously when I load a set of 20 and someone gets in their 20 on top of mine, ugh. I did that to nick today, so i am a jerk sorry. im cool with a couple regs at the table but i really hate loading a set when all i see is 4of9 in the lobby all the way down.

I do see some people making attempts to not get in em. like gobby or whatever his name is, not 2+2 i dont think, loads beneath. I like this a lot.

Yeah you're right. There's no possible way you could play multiple buy-ins or sites.

I have a bankroll for the $55s so I'm only going to play $55s! Open up your mind a little bit if you want to maximize profit.

I will only play pokerstars because it's the most popular site for SNGs & the games fill well. The games are also the toughest on the net there chief.

GL w/ your view on table selection. It sounds like a future success story. You're the next big thing in SNGs imo.

I think you're getting something wrong here.
With games changing and personal skill evolving, you can never really "see" that happen.

Also, kamel seems somewhat overhyped.
He gives some interesting postflop advice but some posts he make just seem really strange to me, I've never seen a graph of him so I'm not sure what to think of that.

I mean obviously you can get a small edge over masstabling nits early, but when they're close to perfect in lategame what I think many are at 60+ levels, you really can't ever make much money out of them, I think it's hard to beat a relative edge of like 8% which should be rake at most ps games or even 9% at party.
So I guess creative regs who think they can exploit other regs early and make money out of them have just run like god for the most part.
What I wanna say is and it's sometimes hard since that's not my native language, that it's certainly possible to get an edge over a reg at least early, but this edge won't make up for the rake ever if the reg is not the biggest spewtard in the world.

No one is over-hyping Kamel except Kamel. But again, I do enjoy his POV.

Obv, many different POVs are good, and his are also so unstandard that it's really interesting.
Meh, my last post sounded more like a diss than it was intended to be, it would just help to know results to at least get a small clue about whether kamel's approach to the game works decently.

I just thought again about your excel file, it doesn't take into account if you have an edge over the regs, right ?
I mean, imagine that ddbeast is playing a $6.5, let's say he has 20% ROI on it, and there are 3 regs registered with 10% ROI (at an average stake of $6). Your maths says that he will expect a 15.72% ROI (-4.28% ROI loss) do you really think this is realistic ?

Of course it does, in the fact that you can input that you have a higher ROI than them. And it is pretty obviously realistic, if you look at the math it is just a simple formula saying that the game is zero sum. In this calculation, saying "I have a larger edge than them over a random field" is exactly equivalent to saying "I have a some kind of small edge over them".

In geometrical terms (math terms incoming), it is also like a barycentric calculation (try to remember high school ), every player is like a point in space with a "weight" proportionnal to his edge. The higher this number, the more you "attract" money. You can achieve this by having yourself a high edge, or by playing games where the others don't (bad players would be even like "repulsing" money). The calculation shows that the second solution is by far more profitable. For fun, try to put 8 regs with 8% ROI, and yourself with 20%. You'll be barely able to beat the rake, because you should be usually playing with like half the field or more running at -15%.

Or maybe I am not getting your point.

EDIT: and strangely I am not getting the same numbers when inputting your example (I am getting a lower ROI for hero). You sure about them ?

I tried to make a similar table selection script in AHK for Stars, but I can't get it to read the names of registered players from the lobby. If anyone can figure out how to do this without resorting to ImageSearch it wouldn't be hard to create a sharklist for Stars. Problem is, I think Stars prevents this to make data mining difficult (Sharkscope developer chuckles).

This has always amazed me as well. I mean I get people who play a few tables for fun and are losing players, but why on earth would you want to grind your ass off for a year or more 16 tabling when you're not even good enough to beat the game even including rakeback? Surely people like that could find plenty of smaller games they could beat at a pretty decent rate.

after my run of awfulness most of this winter, i am showing signs of life, and its at the 6mans. has anyone noticed how much lower the high reg masstabling traffic is at the low/medium 6 mans? in addition, i am feeling confident that even in 6man turbos there is a greater factor to skill discrepancies, since you play more hands against more players.

1) fewer regs seem to choose the 6maxs
2) if you really are a solid player, you'll succeed as well/if not better there than the 9 mans.
3) sets are about 7 minutes shorter on average.

there were 180k players on pokerstars this weeknight-evening; i don't buy it that tournament poker will ever lose their profitability. the $16 hot-spot 9 mans might for a bit, but there is a big box here, i say don't be afraid to get outside of it. If the 16s are just overwhelmed, go crush the 3.40s. 4 table a set of $38s and really pay attention. play some 6maxs, some 18 mans.....

a tried and true formula is certainly an important and lucrative thing, but staying ahead of certain trends can be an absolute gem. in summary--

the $16s being infested is now an element of the game--keep figuring out how to beat the game.

or move to Italy.

I can only take the repetition of the same exact replies over and over and over again in different tones to mean that no one has anything more of value to add to this discussion, or that no one cares to read the constructive (non BBV/non bitching) advice of others in order to further constructive discussion.


Either way, this thread has run its course. I'd like to thank CJSaunders for taking the time to make this post, and anyone who actually replied with something new and constructive, for contributing to the discussion.